The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 90676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The original resolution was "Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised". I'm assuming it's the same here.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes, Capitalism is the worst system ever devised- except for all the others.


"Yes, Capitalism is the worst system ever devised- except for all the others."
Here my opponent is saying that capitalism is the worst system only if you exclude every other system. However, this is just basic logic. If you only have one item on a list, that item will simultaneously be the best and worst on the list automatically. My opponent has proved nothing thus far.

Now, we have agreed that the resolution is "Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised." This leaves my opponent with a hefty burden of proof to fill. He must prove that any system other than capitalism is inferior to capitalism. In order to disprove that, I decided to randomly select an ideology out of a list and see what I got. The result: anarchism. I was secretly hoping for communism since it's basically the exact opposite of true free-market capitalism, but oh well.

So, what makes anarchism better than capitalism? Many things. First and foremost, anarchism may be the most flexible form of government of all. In anarchism, the people as a whole decide on how they want society to be. There are many forms of anarchism. For example, anarcho-communism is a system in which communism exists, but there is no government to control it. This way, there is no possibility of a tyrannical dictator becoming the ruler.

In anarchism, the only purpose of the "government" is to manage foreign affairs. There's an enormous benefit to this - almost no possibility of corruption. Since the well-being of citizens is not decided by a few select individuals, bribing government officials becomes almost pointless and certainly not worth one's time.

Now, many people are skeptical of the feasibility of a successful anarchy that doesn't turn into chaos. However, I argue that not only is it possible, it has already existed in the past. The native Americans had a system very similar to anarcho-communism. Everyone worked for the benefit of each other. People listened to their tribe leader, not because they had to, but because they respected them, and that's the way it should be.

Another example is Aragon. During the Spanish Revolution, this area had no official rulers. Before, there was a working class of peasants who were controlled by serfs, but the anarchists overthrew them and created a true anarchist society. People were free to fulfill their needs of life without the control of others.

Anarcho-communism for the win!
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent argues for anarcho capitalism, which, though ensures that you won't be exploited by your goveronment, almost ensures that you will be exploited by someone elses goveronment. The Natve Americans for example lived in an akmost utopian socioty is certain places, the Indians in El Dorado, for example, lived in an absolute communist socioty, and somehow they weeded out the bugs of communism, everyone was treated exactly equal and no one starved. They all died.

This is repeated through history, and the truth is, to preserve the rights of the people, a goveronment is necessary, big enough to protect our rights, but not so big that it begins infringing our rights itself. People just aren't good enough for a anarchist socioty to work, infac this was referenced by one of our founding fathers:
"If men were angels no goveroment would be necessary" - James Madison


Conspiracyrisk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Harry Truman wins by knockout!


Apologies for forfeiting; I didn't mean to.

First, I'd like to point out that this is a debate about capitalism, not anarcho-communism. I just brought it up as a means of comparison for fun's sake. My opponent still has said basically nothing about capitalism itself, and since he has the BoP, I don't really see the need to rebut his arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


Capitalism is when you work and you're able to get what's rightfully yours.


My opponent has made no real arguments promoting capitalism this entire debate. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Pro merely asserts the topic again, not sufficient to show that capitalism is the best system. Con explains that anarcho-communism is more flexible for growth. Pro's response is that such utopian societies historically died out (while failing to explain link between anarcho-communism and them dying out). In short, pro loses because they don't show capitalism is the best system and their response to anarcho-communism isn't compelling. Vote Con.